About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
at the u.n. and had this graphic illustration of the problem, he created what was a new threshold for them. and the threshold. from the previous to my don't know, 6-12 months the israelis have been focusing on primarily because of the defense minister, what he called the son of immunity. what he meant was, iran was going to of, with the character of the sip their program, the theft of the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program would reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military options. and not just this one, easily accept a situation where they face a threat but no longer have the military option to deal with it. and so what he was trying to say come identify the point at which the zone of immunity, he was saying it would be the end of 2012. he has changed that and said it has been pushed back. when the prime minister was in new york he focused on the point at which the iranians would cross a threshold where there would have the ability to grow the nuclear weapon and you would not be allowed to do anything about it. he was suggesting that would be when they
when he gave his speech at the u.n. and he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he created what was a new threshold for them. for the previous, i don't know, six to 12 months, israelis have been focusing on what they called immunity. the result of immunity. what you mean by that was the death and the breath and the hardening of the nuclear program they face an existential threat and have the military option to deal with it. so they are saying under a point at which they own immunity is going to kick in, he was saying this is going to be the end of 2012. he has changed that and has said it has been pushed back eight to 10 months. when the prime minister was in new york, he focused not only on his own immunity, but the point at which iranians would cross the threshold where they would have the ability to build a nuclear weapon and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. and he was suggesting that that would be when they had one at 20%. that is a limited definition. the issue for him was to define in a way, it also pushed off into the middle of 2013. they came up with di
at the u.n. and e had this graphic -- he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he was, he created what was a new threshold for them. he called it a red line, but a new threshold. they had -- for the previous, i don't know, 6-12 months the israelis had been focusing on, primarily because of the defense minister, ehud barak, the zone of immunity. and what he meant was iran was going to with the character of its nuclear program, the depth, the breadth, the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program was going to reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military option. and no israeli prime minister is going to accept a situation where they face an existential threat, but they no longer have a military option to deal with it. so ehud barak was trying to identify the point at which the zone of immunity was going to kick in. now, he was saying it was going to be the end of 2012. now, he's changed that and said it's been pushed back 8-12 -- 8-10 months. when the prime minister was in new york he focused not on the zone of immunity, he focused on what's the point in
and you have perhaps a u.n. operation in the international coordination is weak leadership. you have confusion. i think one of the highest hurdles to overcome is the residual feeling, often among ngos that they would be contaminated if they do any cooperation with the military. but mostly he says, it's only the military that has the logistic capacity to project not only power, but to project units and sanitation equipment into a remote area and to take people out from the remote area who need more sophisticated care. so if you don't have leadership on the ground, it can help bridge the gaps. i think there's also contiguous set of intellectual political pass. obviously some groups, the red cross, quakers at his long tradition of relating to the military on battlefields and knowing how to deal the potential sense of conflicts and perspectives. but i think that's the dialogue that had to be extended to all of these other groups that are active. i think some are fairly pragmatic. and thinking of doctors without borders right now. there are others who are anything but. so that's an area w
. when i look at what's going on this area, to u.n. security council is dysfunctional, not working, not capable of coming to a conclusion. the g20 has not fulfilled, at least not according to me, the expectations we had when this larger body was created. in other words, from a european point of view, you need to worry about the fact that europe will have obviously a smaller portion of the cake in the future. germany is going to a 1% of the worlds population. the e.u. altogether 5%, 40 or so. in other words, what probably needs minority protection. we have a ton about that much. that's a specific problem for europeans, not so much for americans. if that is correct analysis, did we need to worry about global governance. we are capable as long as we are in charge and as long as we still represent to some degree the majority and as long as are capable for helping to shape the international system. we are capable of shaping an international system, which will be sustained even when we are only a minority. in other words, we called the shot. can we reform the u.n., the g20 system and oth
-integrating everything. for the first 75 years, we have never received the people's republic of china and the u.n. report -- they changed this position on the island. and to me, i don't want to get into that too many details. frankly, this is not the heart of the issue. china is trying to advance. there is an issue with japan. from japan to taiwan, the philippines, this is from the viewpoint of china. china has openly expressed their views on this in maritime security. and those are part of the reality. so this is a kind of comprehensive strategy to advance. >> that is an important point. what you're basically saying is that this is about power and the power -- china is clearly becoming more powerful. you are seeing lines being challenged. i remember talking to george soros once after he broke the back of england -- i'm sorry, broke the bank of england. what he saw as a hedge fund manager basically drove so hard against the wind that fundamentally the institutional power on the bank of england site had to collapse. and i have looked at asia and the test of power in the region, whether it was the vp incid
, but to support the ratification of the u.n. convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, or as it's known as the crpd. first, i want to thank chairman kerry of the senate foreign relations committee for his diligence and for his leadership on this issue. he has carried this through the committee. he's brought it to the floor. in fact, i was reminded earlier today, we were both on the committee back in the 198 1990's when we first started working on the americans with disabilities act under the tutelage, really, of senator lowell weicker who remains a great friend to this day and is still a great leader on the issues of people with disabilities, and so we go back that far in working together on these issues. i just want to thank senator kerry for his great leadership in bringing us to this point and hopefully the point being that we're going to ratify this wonderful treaty. i want to thank senator lugar again for all of his efforts through so many years on so many different things. on this issue especially going back to the americans with disabilities act, but through all these eff
that in the '90s, we had several examples of massive united nations led interventions where the u.n. move in and establish a presence at a governance in iraq and afghanistan, it was u.s. and nato-led. but in the middle east and north africa particularly in these three countries we were discussing, something new is happening. this is the international community learning how to do things different. we are not going back to what we've done in the last 20 years. we're going to do this in a different way. and i think as an international community where learning what that processes. if you on the ground you can see. there's a lot of things going on, a lot of people there but there's a hesitancy about this intervention. and this involvement. that is quite telling. it wasn't there, you know, in the past. >> thank you. >> yes, i'd like to know how -- i'm abigail woodward and the like to know how women's rights are being protected and advanced. and i like to know if the muslim brotherhood is seen as the main impediment to that, and other constitutions are including them? >> let's start perhaps with
'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. and, you know, we are after an election now. i think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in benghazi, and i'm happy to cooperate in any ways that congress wants. we have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information, and we've got a full blown investigation. and all the information will be be scorched to congress. i don't think there's any debate in this country that when you're four americans killed, that's a problem. we've got to get to the bottom of it. there needs to be accountability. we've got to bring those who carried it out to justice. they won't be any debate from me on that. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she is an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person
is where the u.n. moved and established a presence and governments in iraq in afghanistan and was u.s. invasion, but in north africa, particularly in these countries we are discussing, something new is happening. this might think, in some respects is the international community learning how to do things into for ways. certainly we are not coming back to what we have done over the last 20 years. we are going to do this into for weight. as an engine mastectomy we are learning what the processes, and if you're on the ground you can see there are a lot of things are gonna people. there's a hesitancy about this intervention in this involvement that is quite telling and was not there, you know. >> interesting. thank you. >> yes. >> identify yourself. >> deal woodward, and i would like to know how women's rights are being protected and advanced, and i would like to know if the muslim brotherhood is seen as the main impediment to that and how the constitution's are including them. >> let's start, perhaps, with the most significant case, the constitutional issues in the role of the muslim br
's fixed system on the bottom. it's un-- unmanned underwater vehicles that could be antonymous. we are not far from being able to deploy the system. we'll don't develop in field and integrated unmanned aerial system to froarpt a carrier. this next year, here in this fiscal year 13, we'll do a demonstration of unmanned vehicle from a carrier and recover that will be able to use that system. that will read us to building a system that can operate within our air wings and provide that persistence, maybe support logistics. if we don't have all the system of support the pilot. that's extra weight. extra payload, extra systems, extra capability. and that will be an important part of our future. a few words about our rebalance to the asia-pacific. sustaining appropriate capability in the middle east. it's been a long time focus for the u.s. navy. five of our seven treaty allies are in the pacific. six of the top economies in the largest army in the world are in the asia-pacific. so it makes sense that we would do that. as i have shown you or mentioned on thegraphic there, 50 -- about half
and that will be at a time when the afghan government is in full control of its own sovereignty. the current u.n. security council resolution basis for the current operation will come to an end. you'll need a newly legal basis for the new operation. who would enforce agreements for the 1940s and the north atlantic council is just engaging with the afghan government on what the shape of that mission would be. so there's a mixture of conditions based in the implementation and then there is the beginning of the negotiation about what the next mission will be. but as i said, it will not be a combat mission. the wellbutrin advisory mission, which is part of the long-term commitment of the international community to afghanistan way out over the transformation decade of the tokyo summit this summer. so there's going be amick shared in a fact, military capability building. but the international community and a much broader sense is doing for the very substantial problems of quality develop and comment governments in afghanistan and the individual countries like our own are doing in bilateral programs, which is pa
, had been a member of the bureau and of course general of the u.n., son of leo chukchi whose political commissar of the general logistics department. both of these officers did not receive promotions obviously and reflects to me continued effort to and affect consolidate in power, professional military officers who are loyal to the party, not engaged in chinese politics and in this context, suggesting over time the gradual diminution of the dominant influence of ground forces in china's military. we see this in a couple respects and of course related to this that the parallel rise at the air force, navy and perhaps to an extent the central artillery. luscious look for example at two new members of the -- two new vice chair of the central military commission. cheong alluded to that debate before. one, general fund chung moon of the military region. general phong did something unusual. he jumped to greece. he never served in the military commission in this case he leapfrogged totally uncharacteristic in order to be promoted to vice chair of the cmc. but the military region i should note
by the populationst un is against us? >> that is the answer i have just given you.r tha the rules of engagement are different but i cannot make specific judgment with your written a vice but it is the sole reason it is a complex tapestry of a number of reasons. >> if i might their recent statistics. and the north atlantic council always takes an interest.on the latest report suggested % of civil 80% of casualties are caused by the insurgents to be at issued did to the outer forces. >> don't misunderstand. my question relates 20,063rd 2007. >> those in civilian casualties there is still blamed for the level oftime violence sometimes precarious. >> as soon as there is any indit indication but local a visit maybebility and casualty. so that maybe the environment attributed. >> with a final remark protecting the civilian population we have that protection that would not be t viable the. >> general, deciding the eules of engagement with the north atlantic council and does direct that the rules of engagd does direct that the rules of engagement and there itti and i possibility of as civilian casualty
for conflict. and i would look to the state department to carry this into the u.n. so that we get to the international forum particularly if it continues to escalate. member to come to frame that a declaratory policy for the nations that are not -- that have the servers that may not be partisan bidding so that it's clear, and then to start to think of other diplomatic actions that could potentially be taken to cut off the escalation of this activity or its attacks on us or on a larger group etc. >> but i don't want to take off the table actions on the diplomatic actions because i think that we have exhausted many of the potential diplomatic actions. and so we need to think about what are ways to send a strong signal to the leadership in x land and other places by some other actions in putting perhaps covert action. >> quick question, so far the u.s. government has said nothing publicly about who is behind the attacks. there's speculation in the media based on the leaks of incredible sources that the u.s. government has said nothing publicly. what is your decision as to whether or
's unparalleled success. at the u.n. last year, president obama spoke strongly about this thing that the u.s. quote will support a free and open internet so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. no one has been a more forceful advocate of the economic and social opportunities of the open internet and secretary of state hillary clinton. who delivered a landmark speech on internet freedom in 2010 when she said that one of the fundamental freedoms of the internet age was the freedom to connect. the idea that government should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. now, internet freedom is sometimes cited as an obstacle to addressing the issues of cybersecurity and intellectual property theft. i disagree with that. i disagree not because i question the importance of issues of the magnitude of the threat. a very serious problem we have to address. but i believe based on my experience that we can address those issues without undermining the core values like internet freedom and privacy. we've put our money where our mouths are at
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16